MARY Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have come forward with this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the eighth respondent dated 19.06.2014 and to issue a consequential direction forbearing the respondents 6 to 9 from in any way interfering with their agricultural activities in the lands comprised in S.Nos. 117/1 to 117/5 at Kandipedu Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District admeasuring 3 Acres and 54 Cents.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that they are agriculturists and are in possession of the lands in question. According to them, the respondents, without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, have attempted to illegally trespass into their property purportedly in exercise of power under Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. According to the petitioners, the sixth respondent trespassed into their land for putting up a construction of 400KV DC lines from Mettur Stage -II to Thiruvalam 400KV SS and proceeded with the construction of Mettur -Thiruvalam Transmission line through the Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that the respondents have not followed the procedures laid down under Section 10 (1) (b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. According to the petitioners, their lands have not been acquired in a manner known to law or they have been paid compensation. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondents, instead of erecting the transmissions on the adjacent poromboke lands, have deliberately failed to do so for obvious reasons. The respondents also adopted dubioius method by avoiding transmission line in straight line instead planned it to bring in to the petitioners land and then move on to the other side in "V"shape. The petiitoners have therefore sent a letter dated 20.05.2014 objecting to the laying of high power lines and digging of holes. A reply dated 12.06.2014 was sent informing that the project is being implemented by the 8th respondent and directed the petitioners to submit their objections, if any, to the 8th respondent. Accordingly, the petitioners sent their objection on 26.05.2014 to the 8th respondent. While the petitioners were anticipating a reply, the 8th respondent issued a notice dated 13.06.2014 requiring the petitioners to appear for an enquiry on 16.06.2014. On receipt of the notice, the petitioners appeared and orally objected to the grant of permission to enter upon the lands without being acquired in a manner known to law. The petitioners also sought time to engage a counsel of their choice to submit a detailed written objection. However, even without granting any further time, the 8th respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.06.2014 thereby permitting the officials to enter upon the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of erecting the high tension power line. Therefore, challenging the order dated 19.06.2014 of the eighth respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that the impugned order has been passed by the eighth respondent in total violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners appeared for an enqujiry on 16.06.2014 and sought time to file their written objections, however, without even granting any time, the eighth respondent passed the impugned order which is legally not sustainable. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 8th respondent has no power or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as contemplated under Section 16 of The Indian Telegraph Act, read with Section 10 (d). The 8th respondent, with oblique motive and in collusion with influencial persons in the locality, altered the original plan proposed for erection of towers and resultantly ordered to erect the high tension electrical tower in the lands of the petitioners.